by Jim Dean, VT Editor featuring Haaretz and Barak Ravid
Dear Folks, We still are aghast that the long-discredited Iran nuke threat hype still continues to be peddled in Western media.
It continues giving credence to a long-time claim that maybe the Israelis have some invisible power over our Fourth Estate.
I expect you all to get the joke.
Are we believe that American media does not read Israeli papers like Haaretz? After all, open-source intelligence has been a huge thing since 911.
Even VT uses it to check on stories. So why can’t our ‘professional’ media people do it?
We will be reviewing some of our past material to show in new articles what we knew back then because the ‘let’s bomb Iran now’ crowd seems to be beating the war drums again.
The fraud of their whole scam is more obvious now than ever.
But today we will just take a little trip back to December 29th, 2011, when Mossad chief Tamir Pardo gave up the ghost. Sources like this do not grow on trees, and we did not even have to waterboard him.
Mossad chief – Nuclear Iran is not an existential threat to Israel
Tamir Pardo says Israel using various means to foil Iran’s nuclear program, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean the destruction of Israel.
by Barak Ravid, Haaretz – Dec.29, 2011
A nuclear-armed Iran wouldn’t necessarily constitute a threat to Israel’s continued existence, Mossad chief Tamir Pardo reportedly hinted earlier this week.
On Tuesday evening, Pardo addressed an audience of about 100 Israeli ambassadors.
According to three ambassadors present at the briefing, the intelligence chief said that Israel was using various means to foil Iran’s nuclear program and would continue to do so.
But if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean the destruction of the State of Israel.
“What is the significance of the term existential threat?” the ambassadors quoted Pardo as asking.
“Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That’s not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely.”
The ambassadors said Pardo did not comment on the possibility of an Israeli military assault on Iran.
“But what was clearly implied by his remarks is that he doesn’t think a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel,” one of the envoys said.
Pardo’s remarks follow lively a public debate in recent months over a possible Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. One of the figures at the center of this public debate has been Pardo’s predecessor as Mossad chief, Meir Dagan.
Dagan has argued that Israel should only resort to military force “when the knife is at its throat and begins to cut into the flesh.”
He has also criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, accusing them of pushing for an Israeli attack on Iran, and warned that such an assault would have disastrous consequences.
For the past several years, Netanyahu has characterized a nuclear Iran as an existential threat to Israel.
The prime minister has even compared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler and argued that Iran should be treated as Nazi Germany should have been dealt with in 1938, just before World War II.
In contrast, Barak said in April 2010 that Iran “was not an existential threat at the moment,” but warned that it could become one in the future.
In the cabinet, Netanyahu and Barak have been the leading proponents of a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
So far, however, they have not managed to convince a majority of either the “octet” forum of eight senior ministers or the diplomatic-security cabinet to support their position.
[Editors Note: I thought this cited material from Wikipedia fit well here.
Following his departure, Dagan made several controversial public statements concerning the prudence of an Israeli military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. He called it a “stupid idea.”[when?] After Dagan voiced criticism of the prime minister, he was asked to return his diplomatic passport before its expiration date.
Dagan repeated the opinion in a March 2012 interview with Leslie Stahl of CBS News 60 Minutes, calling an Israeli attack of Iran before other options were exhausted “the stupidest idea” and saying he considered the Iranians “a very rational regime.”…Jim Dean]
In related news, The Daily Beast website reported yesterday about one aspect of the disagreement between Israel and the United States on the Iranian nuclear issue.
It said that Washington and Jerusalem are discussing “red lines” for Iran’s nuclear project that, if crossed, would justify a preemptive strike on the nuclear facilities.
The website’s defense reporter, Eli Lake, wrote that Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, lodged an official protest with the American administration following a speech a few weeks ago by U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at the Saban Forum, in which the American defense chief warned of the consequences of an attack on Iran.
The Daily Beast reported that Panetta’s remarks infuriated the Israeli government and that Oren was directed to lodge the protest.
A short time later, the White House conveyed a message of reassurance to Israel that the Obama administration has its own red lines for attacking Iran, so there is no need for Israel to act unilaterally.
The Israeli protest was also followed by a shift in Panetta’s rhetoric: In an interview with the American television network CBS, Panetta said the United States would not take any option off the table with regard to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
The crux of the disagreement between the two countries revolves around the question of to what extent Iran has managed to develop clandestine sites for uranium enrichment. As a result, Israel and the United States are having a hard time settling on common “red lines.”
Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy told The Daily Beast that “if Iran were found to be sneaking out or breaking out [toward obtaining nuclear weapons], then the president’s advisers are firmly persuaded he would authorize the use of military force to stop it.”
However, he added, “When the occasion comes, we just don’t know how the president will react.”
Jim W. Dean was an active editor on VT from 2010-2022. He was involved in operations, development, and writing, plus an active schedule of TV and radio interviews.
ATTENTION READERSWe See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.
About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy